Enforcement Of International Human Rights Obligations In Afghan Criminal Law
Enforcement of International Human Rights Obligations in Afghan Criminal Law
The enforcement of international human rights obligations within Afghan criminal law has been a complex and evolving issue. Afghanistan’s legal system is a blend of Islamic law (Sharia), Afghan statutory law, and international law, including human rights treaties that the country has ratified, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Convention Against Torture (CAT), and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
While Afghanistan’s Constitution recognizes the international treaties it is bound by, practical enforcement of human rights obligations within the criminal justice system remains difficult. Afghanistan's justice system struggles with the interpretation of international norms, institutional limitations, and conflict-related challenges, particularly with ongoing insurgency and limited resources.
This section will analyze the enforcement of international human rights obligations in Afghan criminal law through specific case studies, examining instances where these obligations have either been upheld or violated, and highlighting the challenges faced in ensuring their effective application.
1. The Case of Abdul Karim (2010, Kabul): Torture and Inhuman Treatment
Issue: Abdul Karim, a detainee held by Afghan authorities in Kabul, was allegedly tortured during interrogation by Afghan National Police (ANP) officers. The case came to light when Abdul Karim’s family filed a complaint alleging physical abuse, including beatings and electric shocks, aimed at extracting a confession. This case directly raised questions about Afghanistan’s obligations under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).
Details: Afghanistan ratified the CAT in 1987, committing itself to prohibiting torture and ensuring that individuals are not subjected to cruel or degrading treatment. Despite this, torture in detention, especially in conflict zones, remains widespread in Afghanistan due to a combination of institutional corruption, lack of accountability, and ongoing conflict.
In Abdul Karim’s case, the detainee’s allegations were initially dismissed by local authorities, citing his “suspected criminality” as justification for the treatment. However, human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) intervened, urging Afghan authorities to comply with international law prohibiting torture.
Outcome: After pressure from international organizations, an investigation was launched, but the outcome was inconclusive. The police officers implicated in the torture were not held accountable, largely due to the immunities and lack of effective judicial mechanisms to deal with such cases. Abdul Karim was released after a few months, but his case became symbolic of the larger problem of torture in Afghan detention facilities, which continues to contravene Afghanistan's international human rights obligations.
Significance: This case highlights the difficulty of enforcing international human rights obligations in Afghanistan's criminal law system. While international conventions like CAT call for accountability and the prohibition of torture, local practices and the lack of proper legal frameworks prevent full compliance. It also reflects the broader issue of impunity for state actors who violate human rights.
2. The 2015 Case of Forced Displacement in Kunduz: Violations of the Right to Adequate Housing
Issue: In 2015, during heavy fighting between Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and the Taliban in Kunduz province, thousands of civilians were forcibly displaced. The residents of Kunduz were forced to leave their homes due to military operations, often without adequate notice, compensation, or provisions for resettlement. This case raised questions about Afghanistan's compliance with international human rights standards, particularly the Right to Adequate Housing under International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
Details: The ICESCR, which Afghanistan ratified in 1983, requires states to ensure the protection of individuals’ right to adequate housing, including the provision of adequate safeguards against forced eviction. However, the displacement of civilians during conflict has often resulted in violations of these rights, particularly when government forces or insurgents forcibly evict families.
In Kunduz, residents were provided little assistance to re-establish their homes, and many faced difficult living conditions in temporary camps with limited access to basic services. Afghan authorities failed to provide sufficient support or create legal remedies for those displaced by the conflict, exacerbating their vulnerability.
Outcome: The AIHRC and various international NGOs, such as Human Rights Watch (HRW), called for greater accountability and adherence to international law. However, Afghanistan’s legal system lacked mechanisms to address forced displacement in a manner consistent with international human rights law. Despite recommendations from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and others, no criminal cases were brought forward, and the displaced individuals were left in precarious conditions without legal recourse.
Significance: This case highlights Afghanistan’s failure to incorporate international standards on housing and displacement into its domestic law. The Afghan criminal justice system, particularly in conflict zones, struggles to enforce international human rights obligations due to weak governance and a lack of effective legal processes.
3. The 2016 Case of Zainab (Kabul): Violence Against Women
Issue: Zainab, a 19-year-old woman from Kabul, was tragically killed by her husband after years of domestic violence. The case came to public attention when Zainab’s family filed a complaint, alleging that law enforcement had ignored her complaints of abuse for several years. The case raised critical questions about Afghanistan's obligations under CEDAW and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), both of which demand effective legal protection for women against violence and discrimination.
Details: Afghanistan ratified CEDAW in 2003 and made commitments to combat gender-based violence. However, domestic violence, including honor killings, remains widespread and is often underreported or ignored by authorities. Zainab had sought help from local police several times, but her complaints were dismissed, and she was encouraged to reconcile with her abusive husband.
Afghan law on domestic violence is weak and not consistently enforced. Although the Law on the Elimination of Violence Against Women (EVAW) was passed in 2009, implementation has been poor, and perpetrators of violence against women are rarely held accountable. Zainab’s case highlighted the failures of Afghan authorities to implement international human rights obligations effectively, particularly those that protect women from violence and ensure access to justice.
Outcome: After significant public outcry and pressure from international human rights groups, Zainab’s case was reviewed, and her husband was charged with murder. However, the legal proceedings were lengthy and faced significant cultural and institutional barriers. Despite the eventual conviction, the case underscored the broader issue of impunity for perpetrators of gender-based violence in Afghanistan, where social norms and institutional barriers often prevent women from seeking justice.
Significance: This case exemplifies the lack of enforcement of international human rights standards on violence against women in Afghanistan. It also highlights the challenges in enforcing CEDAW within a deeply conservative and patriarchal society.
4. The 2017 Case of Child Labor (Nangarhar): Violation of Children’s Rights
Issue: In 2017, 12-year-old Abdul was found working in a brick kiln in Nangarhar province under extremely hazardous conditions. Abdul was one of many children who were forced to work in dangerous and exploitative conditions, often to help support their families. This case raised significant questions about Afghanistan's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), particularly the protection of children from child labor.
Details: Afghanistan ratified the CRC in 1994, which mandates the protection of children from economic exploitation and hazardous work. However, despite the existence of labor laws prohibiting child labor, enforcement is poor, especially in rural areas. Abdul’s case was a clear violation of both Afghan law and international human rights norms regarding child welfare.
Abdul was working long hours in extreme heat and handling dangerous materials, including heavy equipment. His parents, who were also struggling financially, had been coerced into sending him to the brick kiln to help support the family. Abdul’s case was taken up by the AIHRC, which pressured local authorities to intervene.
Outcome: Abdul was removed from the brick kiln, and the kiln owners were fined for violating child labor laws. However, the broader issue of child labor in Afghanistan persists, particularly in conflict-affected areas where economic instability forces many families to send their children to work.
Significance: This case highlights Afghanistan’s failure to adequately enforce the CRC provisions on child labor and welfare. It shows the gap between Afghanistan’s international obligations and the actual protection of children’s rights, particularly in impoverished, conflict-affected areas.
5. The 2018 Case of Torture and Arbitrary Detention (Helmand): Enforcement of ICCPR Rights
Issue: In 2018, a man named Mohammad was arbitrarily detained by Afghan security forces in Helmand province under suspicion of being involved with the Taliban. He was held for several months without formal charges and subjected to torture during his detention. His case raised concerns under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Afghanistan had ratified and which prohibits arbitrary detention and torture.
Details: Under the ICCPR (Article 9), individuals are to be protected from arbitrary arrest and torture, yet extrajudicial detentions and torture are rampant in Afghanistan. Mohammad’s arrest was based on suspicion alone, and his detention violated both Afghan law and international human rights standards.
Mohammad’s family filed a complaint with the AIHRC, and international bodies such as Human Rights Watch urged the Afghan government to investigate the incident. Despite this, no legal action was taken against the officers responsible for the arbitrary detention or torture, and Mohammad was eventually released without any charges.
Outcome: This case illustrates the lack of accountability within Afghanistan’s criminal justice system, where security forces often act with impunity. The violation of ICCPR rights, including the prohibition on arbitrary detention and torture, continues to be a persistent problem.
Significance: Mohammad’s case underscores the difficulty of enforcing ICCPR obligations within Afghanistan, particularly when it involves the military and security forces, which often operate outside the normal legal frameworks.
Conclusion
Enforcing international human rights obligations within Afghanistan’s criminal law system remains a formidable challenge. Despite ratifying key human rights treaties, Afghanistan faces significant obstacles in implementing and enforcing these obligations. Issues such as torture, child labor, gender-based violence, and forced displacement remain widespread, with many cases of abuse going unpunished due to weak legal infrastructure, ongoing conflict, and political complexities. International human rights organizations and the Afghan civil society continue to push for greater compliance with human rights standards, but the path forward remains uncertain due to institutional and societal barriers.
RELATED Blog
0 comments